North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ?
All together now... "No one cares, Jim". - Dan Golding -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of JIM FLEMING Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:28 PM To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Bellovin,Steven M (Steve) - ALRES Cc: email@example.com Subject: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ? Does AT&T provide, "end-to-end" IPv4 IP Header Transport ? ....with the TOS field untouched ? Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Sprunk <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Roeland Meyer <email@example.com>; 'Shawn McMahon' <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 1:16 PM Subject: Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police > > Thus spake "Roeland Meyer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > > > Please reference any suit regarding breach of contract. Examples > > abound. Port filtering may be construed as a material breach when the > > expectation is, that there is to be no port filtering. Access is > access, > > even when the customer doesn't know that they are being restricted in > > their access. That just assures you that they will go ballistic when > they > > find out. > > If filtering is in the contract, it's hardly breach of contract to > perform it. > > > Face it guys, you KNOW that this is basically dishonest. As such, it > is > > indefensible. I would almost bet <amount> that none of the transit > > providers mentions restrictions, on access, in their contracts. I > would > > almost bet <1/2 amount> that NONE of the access providers mention > > same in THEIR contracts. > > AT&T, I believe, was the first major provider to start filtering port > 25; here's the relevant part of their contract: > > http://www.att.net/general-info/terms.html > "AT&T reserves the right to block, filter or delete Unsolicited > E-Mails." > > While it doesn't explicitly state how they intend to "block, filter or > delete" spam, filtering port 25 by default can be reasonably construed > to fit that definition, and is therefore within the contract. > > Ths is also promising: > "don't send materials that contain viruses, worms, or any other > destructive elements; ... You may not use or attempt to use the Service > to violate its security or the security of systems accessible through > it, ... you should secure your computer equipment so that only > authorized users can gain access to your Service account." > > You could claim that these sections authorize blocking of QAZ et al, > since the activity of worms is prohibited. Also, customers are required > to secure their computers to prevent intrusion, so leaving any blatantly > insecure protocol like SMB enabled might be breach of contract. > Wholesale blocking of SMB might even be allowed. > > Of course, I wouldn't want to use that logic in court, but a good lawyer > could probably pull it off. I'd prefer to insert more specific wording > into the contract first. > > > The general expectation is for clear and open pipes. Put such > restiction > > into your contracts and you will lose customers. > > As long as a user can request the filters be removed (as in AT&T's > case), I doubt anyone will lose customers. In fact, I've seen many ads > for ISPs which promote their filtering service with the belief that it > will bring them more customers. > > > Don't put them in and start filtering anyway and you will lose > > court cases...big ones. > > If an ISP refuses to turn off unrequested filters, and the filters > aren't in the contract, I can see a lawsuit. I can also see the > customer simply taking their business elsewhere and persuing the matter > through the press. As AGIS proved, that turned out to be far more > effective than courts. > > Then again, nobody here seems to be suggesting mandatory filtering. Why > is there such a strong objection to opt-out filters, where a single call > or email can get the filters turned off? Is using a phone really that > difficult? > > S > > | | Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723 > :|: :|: Network Design Consultant, GSOLE > :|||: :|||: New office: RCDN2 in Richardson, TX > .:|||||||:..:|||||||:. Email: email@example.com > > > >